In the ‘community participation’ segment of Tuesday night’s council meeting, one resident got up and said that ‘large trees’ are being taken down by developers before they put in their applications. The resident claimed that two large trees in Hamilton Street Bentleigh had been removed prior to the planning permit application and that he had sent an email to council ‘asking for them to be considered as significant trees’ but hadn’t got any response. He wanted to know ‘how do I go about’ having someone from council ‘come and have a look at it’. Delahunty answered that ‘council currently doesn’t have any tree protection on private land’. Only when someone has applied for a planning permit can council start assessing whether or not there is any ‘significant vegetation’ on the property. Delahunty went on to say that ‘unfortunately at the moment there is no ability for us to protect those trees‘. The resident then wanted it confirmed that ‘there’s nothing we can do’. The developer will cut down the trees ‘and they will be gone’ before he puts in the planning application. Delahunty then asked Torres to ‘detail’ the planning scheme’s ‘anti-moonscaping provision’.
TORRES: said that ResCode allows councils to ‘consider significant vegetation’ that are removed ‘in the past 12 months prior to lodging’ the application and that there are ‘principles around that in not granting a development advantage’.
DELAHUNTY: said that ‘that doesn’t necessarily address what you are talking about’.
RESIDENT: said that the property up for decision that night had a ‘big tree removed’ from there and wanted to know ‘what can be done about that?’
DELAHUNTY: passed this onto Torres and said that she didn’t ‘realise’ that there were any trees involved and that councillors didn’t have any information on that. In the end answered that ‘nothing’ can be done.
DAVEY: asked ‘what can we do?’
DELAHUNTY: said that ‘previously council has considered a significant tree register’ and that many other councils have one. Also that this is something they will ‘consider’ in the future.
RESIDENT: asked ‘how do we go about the process’ for getting council to ‘consider that again?’
DELAHUNTY: said she is a ‘big fan’ of a significant tree register. It’s been part of the last Community Plan but wasn’t ‘enacted at council’. ‘We will have to kick off a Local Law Review’ and that’s when they will start to ‘look at this very seriously’.
HYAMS: asked Torres about ‘this moonscaping development’ how council knows whether large trees are gone before the application comes in?
TORRES: said council has ‘detailed aerial photography’. Plus they get ‘information from the community as well’.
HYAMS: asked the resident when the tree was removed.
RESIDENT: answered that it was removed ‘just before the planning application’ went in on the property.
HYAMS: ‘so theoretically, our officers would have taken that into account’ in writing up their recommendations for the development.
RESIDENT: ‘it’s not been listed on the plans at all’. ‘so it’s just bad luck and they can do what they like’. Said this ‘doesn’t give’ him any ‘hope for the future for the place across the road’. Went on to describe how since all the palm trees along Nicholson St had been removed, the birds are now using these trees in Hamilton and if they go, then there’s nowhere for them.
DELAHUNTY: said she would have ‘another look’ at the aerial shots and ‘maybe it wasn’t significant’
RESIDENT: said the tree was ‘absolutely enormous’.
DELAHUNTY: thanked the resident and said ‘that’s interesting’.
COMMENT
The above ‘discussion’ highlights everything that is suspect about planning in Glen Eira. Apart from the fact that time after time the possibility of a tree register has been defeated by the likes of Esakoff, Lipshutz, Magee, Okotel and Lobo, we find Hyams doing his best ‘public relations’ performance by implying that council officers ‘would have taken into account’ the missing tree in their permit deliberations. It’s very strange then that the officer’s report states – There are no significant trees on the site that would be affected by the proposed development. Thus, did the planning department even bother to visit the site? Did they actually view these ‘aerial photos’. Even a quick search on Google shows large trees across both properties in the application!
Perhaps Hyams and the planning department should be made to answer this very simple question – how many times in the past ten years has council refused to grant a permit on the basis that a tree has been removed? Or even, how many times has the applicant been forced to amend his planning application to encourage the planting of a new tree in the exact same spot that the butchery occurred?
It would also be fascinating to know whether, and how much, council fined Jewish Care over the Wahgoo fiasco when overnight the bulldozers moved in and destroyed nearly 90 trees (including 4 designated as ‘significant’) prior to a permit being granted?
We also need to question why the emphases is on the Local Law (not due for renewal until 2019) and not ensuring that tree protection is part of the Planning Scheme itself. Local laws have far less weight than a provision in the planning scheme. The fact that something is in the Planning Scheme also ensures that residents have objection rights and can go to VCAT if they so decide. Depending how the Local Law is written, there may not be any objection rights whatsoever! Nor would residents have to wait 2 years for the law to be reviewed. An amendment could be started immediately – that is, if council really had the will. A simple copying from other councils should not take too much officer time!
Davey’s question is also disappointing. Doesn’t she really know what is possible? Doesn’t she work for Boroondara which has a tree protection policy? Or is she playing Dorothy Dix here? Either way, after 8 months as a councillor, and a Green, surely she should be aware of the options? Boroondara even allows the ordinary Joe Blow to nominate a tree for the register – https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/waste-environment/trees-and-naturestrips/nominate-tree-recognition-and-protection
Plus there’s also this latest move from a resident in Bayside to protect her peppercorn trees once the property is sold to a developer – See: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/bayside-council-lists-sandringhams-susan-st-peppercorns-on-their-protective-significant-tree-register/news-story/c8b1172df081b566ba92cb903a05bcb7
New councillors have overall been most disappointing. Goes to show how promises to represent the community all too often and quickly disappear into thin air once elected. Much can and should be happening right now. All it takes is for 5 councillors to have the gumption to get up, move a resolution and have it passed. Of course that would require Glen Eira joining every other council in the state and having what it known as a Notice of Motion – repeatedly defeated by the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams, Okotel, Esakoff, Ho and Tang.
June 16, 2017 at 3:12 PM
If you were a councillor and your sole source of information was officer reports, you wouldn’t know what the truth is and couldn’t therefore make an informed decision.
Tree register topic has come up regularly at Council and always dealt with badly. It came up again 17 March 2015. Despite being in the Community Plan, decision was to do nothing in 5-4 split vote. Officer report stated “ResCode mechanism is that any tree removed within 12 months of a town planning application being lodged must be assessed as though the “removed” tree is still in place.”, which simply isn’t true. Ron Torres has now confirmed that, pointing out that trees were removed and their removal was not considered.
Council does have a weak local policy “that trees advanced in growth that will mature to a similar size are planted in a similar location”, but it only applies to Minimal Change Areas. ResCode merely states “Development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made.” It’s not mandatory, it isn’t taken seriously, and it doesn’t specify what a significant tree should be replaced with— perhaps a strip of concrete.
Hamilton St, being zoned Residential Growth Zone, is not a Minimal Change area and therefore can be denuded with impunity. There are no Design Objectives for RGZ in Glen Eira, and no need to respect neighbourhood character [which was a purpose of the former Residential 1 Zone].
June 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM
Well said Reprobate. Your first paragraph pinpoints what is wrong in all councils and especially in Glen Eira. “If you were a councillor and your sole source of information was officer reports, you wouldn’t know what the truth is and couldn’t therefore make an informed decision.”
Officers and the admin basically have too much power. Mind, that is not a good enough reason for councillors to sit back and remain silent when reports before them are so underwhelming in terms of quality and veracity. Instead of ingratiating themselves, councillors should be questioning every sentence and demanding claims are substantiated.
June 16, 2017 at 3:55 PM
It would be fantastic to go past one demolished house and still see a tree left standing. No such luck in Glen Eira. Not a blade of grass is left. No wonder developers love this council.
June 16, 2017 at 8:22 PM
One question not answered was why this concerned resident received no response to his email or emails in the first place, he then had to attend a council meeting to voice his concerns. This was not addressed.
June 16, 2017 at 8:26 PM
And the latest from the Leader on this issue – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/developers-moonscaping-glen-eira-blocks-prompts-call-for-significant-tree-register/news-story/0d85e43e8e28f4391ac4aedd22ecd1fe
June 16, 2017 at 8:52 PM
Steller [developer] again. And Cr Magee arguing we shouldn’t have planning schemes or any restrictions on what people can develop on their land.
June 16, 2017 at 9:05 PM
He’s not the only one with this view. Esakoff is of the same mind.
June 16, 2017 at 9:21 PM
Cr. Magee, went on and on later on in the meeting spending a enormous amount of valuable time in a already late meeting trying to convince his fellow councils why coal is too good of a resource to waste, and how alternative energy option will never work or replace his love of coal.
Mr. Magee is shaping up; or already is a closet climate change denier.
I quiver in my boots at the thought that this man maybe our next Mayor.
June 17, 2017 at 10:05 AM
A block directly opposite us was razed late last year. The place was a deceased estate and sold off for development. A huge oak was in the front yard that is gone. Rose bushes of at least 20 years old are gone. Nothing is left. The tree was near the fence line. Architects could have designed new apartments that kept the tree for shade. Much much easier to get rid of everything than work around nature. Whatever they plant will take about 30 years to get to the same size that this tree was. By that time the shoddy new building will be on its last legs and also have to be torn down. Endless cycle of razing everything to the ground for nothing more than profit.
June 17, 2017 at 1:23 PM
There are a few rare occasions in Glen Eira were a new development is designed around existing landmark tree/s; and what a difference it makes to the finished outcome.
I believe this isn’t encourage enough, or not encourage at all in Glen Eira. If we want to develop street after street into high or medium density living and keep good visual amenity and just as import have good environmental amenity, tree preservation needs to be taken seriously. This is popinted out time and time again to councillors and to the sleepy bureaucrats in Glen Eira
The current long lasting trend is to build Lego-land type buildings with token landscaped plantings that do little in any form what so ever to improve their surrounds and are environmentally useless.
In a few years time when the expected duration of heatwaves noticeably increases, and all this new poured concrete heats up and stores this heat, and radiates it back after sunset. The sounding neighbourhoods will begin to feel the impact, even the existing trees will begin to struggle.
The noise of wall to wall air-cons will be the new sound of unsustainability, and the music to the power companies ears as they jack-up the spot price of electricity to unsustainable generation and price levels.
Climate change deniers like Magee and the other closet anti-tree brigade councillors (which is and in the past almost been all of them) have their collective heads buried in the increasingly hot sand; and have simply no idea of the problems or the solutions, they do not want to know and do not care for the community they report to represent.
June 17, 2017 at 5:03 PM
Having a tree register would be a real inconvenience for the construction industry. At the very least it might cost them some money in getting an arborist report plus the time delay in getting their permits. We can’t have that in Glen Eira.
June 18, 2017 at 10:05 AM
Tree protection will and does add a cost to any development, which will be ultimately passed on to the buyer.
However if developers had a history of being magnanimous or even more genuine in their behaviors to respect or improve our neighbourhood by retaining greenery things could be better and residents would be happier.
This has by my experience rarely, rarely happened as everyone can see with their own two eyes “moonscaping is the normal or prefered practise in Glen Eira. The developers prefer it, and the bureaucrats prefer it. The residents are the odd person out.
The Arborist are paid by the developer/s. The arborist nearly always give the developer what they want. (no impediments) Otherwise it’s goodbye no more work “thank you very much” These reports cannot be trusted, one report in Murrumbeena condemned over 30 trees and shrubs on an established block. Frogmore is in Murrumbeena is another good example of a lost opportunity to preserve trees and neighbourhood greenery. The land has now sat there for a year or more, almost completely barren.
Not for the first time in the chamber Cr Delahuntly has referred to council working closer (a hand in glove relationship, my description not hers) with serial developers that have a good past track record working within Glen Eira. She’s not all that clear in describing what any reciprocal or special relationship will entail, although speed or priority with the planning application process has be mentioned as a thing council could offer.
Well and truly good! if such a relationship is possible. Firstly and most importantly any process that would favour a particular developer would have to be 100% transparent. Would this be possible in Glen Eira, I have serious doubts.
Without transparency would entering into special relationships with these so called trusted developers; just be heading down the slippery slide to legitimizing the expectations of the developers. Ultimately leading to the corruption of the already pathetically weak system.
Who will stick up for the residents, our councillors, the bureaucrats. I’m very sceptical about the wisdom of Cr. Delahunty’s ideas or slant on these perennial development problems we have in our streets.
It’s very hard to understand just what Cr Delahuntly is trying to shine a light on here. I’m lost.
June 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM
The Planning And Environment Act 1987 states the objectives of planning in Victoria are:
•To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
•To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
•To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
•To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
•To protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
I get cross whenever I hear Cr Hyams argue Council’s decisions should be unfair, disorderly, uneconomic, unsustainable, unpleasant, inefficient, unsafe, that history should be bulldozed and replaced with more concrete, and that there is no need for mature trees or landscaping or open space wherever Council wishes to encourage higher density development.
I get doubly cross when other councillors fail to do due diligence and hand Cr Hyams their proxy vote on planning matters.
June 18, 2017 at 4:12 PM
Yes of course, Pilling’s Mayoral pay-back vote pulled the Hyams, Lipshutz cabal over the line time and time again.
Pillings crazy behavior on Frogmore ultimately cost him what he believed was his god given right to be a councillor. He was truly shocked and couldn’t understand why he failed to get reelected, and blamed everyone within telephone reach for undermining him, believing his 2 terms as a councillor had reached new heights in councillor cooperation and in setting high environmental standards. Sadly his delusion and his gullibility ran very deep.
Hyam and Lipshutz being far smarter than Pilling new the voter backlash would be in Rosstown, not Tucker or Camden Wards.